2005 (9) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing of Modvat credit on inputs under Compound Levy Scheme.
2. Dispute over deemed Cenvat credit eligibility.
3. Demand of duty, penalty, and interest imposition.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.).
5. Applicability of deemed Cenvat credit under Compounded Levy Scheme.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Twisted Bars under Compound Levy Scheme, availed Modvat credit on inputs post withdrawal of the Scheme. The Department disputed this credit, leading to proceedings initiated against the appellants.

2. The dispute centered around the appellants' eligibility for deemed Cenvat credit on inputs received post-Compound Levy Scheme withdrawal. The Assistant Commissioner demanded duty, imposed a penalty, and charged interest, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Patna.

3. The Commissioner contended that the appellants were not entitled to benefit under Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.). The appellant argued for the allowance of deemed credit based on the purchase of goods during the transition period.

4. The judgment highlighted that the appellants were eligible for deemed Cenvat credit as per the provisions of Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.), applicable during the transition period. The appellant's purchase of inputs during the Compounded Levy Scheme and receipt post its withdrawal justified the credit availed.

5. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, emphasizing the clear legal position supporting the appellant's entitlement to deemed Cenvat credit under the circumstances.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues by upholding the appellant's right to avail of deemed Cenvat credit on inputs purchased during the transition period post-Compound Levy Scheme withdrawal. The legal interpretation of Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.) played a crucial role in determining the appellant's eligibility, leading to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.